The High Court has rejected an application to block a Defra badger cull, in R (on the application of Badger Trust) v Defra [2014] EWHC 2909 (Admin). The Badger Trust argued that Defra had given an unequivocal assurance that it would keep an independent expert panel (IEP) in place, and would not extend the cull beyond two pilot areas unless the IEP concluded it was safe, effective and humane to do so. Defra did not intend to keep the IEP in place. However, Mr Justice Kenneth Parker found that the trust had no “legitimate expectation” of this kind and, if it did, it would not be binding.
04 September 2014
Badger cull
MOVERS & SHAKERS
NLJ Career Profile: Mark Hastings, Quillon Law
Mark Hastings, founding partner of Quillon Law, on turning dreams into reality and pushing back on preconceptions about partnership
Kingsley Napley—Silvia Devecchi
New family law partner for Italian and international clients appointed
Mishcon de Reya—Susannah Kintish
Firm elects new chair of tier 1 ranked employment department
NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
